Ever wonder if eucalyptus used to have nutritional value and it started evolving it away in order to not be eaten, and Koalas are the only ones who evolved with it in order to keep eating it, but their digestive tracks became so specialized that they’re now eating it because they couldn’t manage anything else and they’re totally dependent on having to stick with it?
I remember years ago back when I was an atheist, I read someone on Reddit or somewhere saying the fact humans get sleepy after sex is proof of evolution. They said it proves evolution because humans go to sleep when their job is done, which is to reproduce. Now, at the time I was an atheist, and of course I still 100% believe in evolution today, but that random person’s comment stuck with me for years.
See, the idea that people go to sleep after sex because their job is done makes for a good story. I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds good. Thing is, the good story isn’t exclusive to evolution. Bible says Elohim told humans to go forth and be fruitful. So if Elohim had created humans, he would have made humans sleepy after sex too. Obviously.
This random guy on the internet whose comment I read years ago, he saw a piece of evidence that made a good story for his views, and he didn’t actually check whether it was evidence against the opponent’s views. I think he just assumed that the two models had to be opposed in every single way and any evidence for his views was evidence against the opposite. He was basically the same as the banana guy.
You know the banana guy? "Bananas are proof of Deus because they’re perfect for eating ". Guy didn’t do his research and didn’t realise humans made bananas the way they are. He found a good story and didn’t check if it was also a good story for the other guys. Same as the sleepy sex guy.
You gotta be able to see the other side’s viewpoint enough to check whether your evidence can be explained by their views, or if you’re just embarassing yourself. That’s the bare minimum of understanding other people’s views. Without it, you end up like the banana guy.
Yeah, I bet. The internet hates nuance, it hates when someone corrects their “own side” or seeks a truth independent of sides. I got banned 6 months ago from Hexbear for saying there’s such a thing as gender neutral pronouns. There was a lot of discussion about the topic, and it emerged that there were two different interpretations of what I said, and they both hated me. Half thought I was advocating they/theming everyone, and hated me for refusing to gender binary people. Half thought I was advocating they/theming nobody, and hated me for insisting on gendering nonbinary people. Neither of those two positions is my position, and of course they’re mutually incompatible with each other.
But these two sides both hated me, and teamed up with each other without ever realising they had completely different ideas. Because, as you say, the fact I had a small disagreement or clarification of their views meant I had to be the enemy. Whereas those two sides had completely different views, but they didn’t voice their disagreements to each other, so they were able to assume they were on the same side. Have a nuanced position like mine, in questions of religion or gender or anything else, and both sides will team up to kick your ass.
Ever wonder if eucalyptus used to have nutritional value and it started evolving it away in order to not be eaten, and Koalas are the only ones who evolved with it in order to keep eating it, but their digestive tracks became so specialized that they’re now eating it because they couldn’t manage anything else and they’re totally dependent on having to stick with it?
Which is one of many many examples to succinctly prove that there’s no intelligent design behind life on Earth.
But modern banana so genetically engineered by humans that it fits perfectly in our hand now!!! 🍌 🦧
In case people are curious what sort of state bananas were in before we came along…
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_with_Seeds.jpg
Wait till you know of peaches. Link
I remember years ago back when I was an atheist, I read someone on Reddit or somewhere saying the fact humans get sleepy after sex is proof of evolution. They said it proves evolution because humans go to sleep when their job is done, which is to reproduce. Now, at the time I was an atheist, and of course I still 100% believe in evolution today, but that random person’s comment stuck with me for years.
See, the idea that people go to sleep after sex because their job is done makes for a good story. I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds good. Thing is, the good story isn’t exclusive to evolution. Bible says Elohim told humans to go forth and be fruitful. So if Elohim had created humans, he would have made humans sleepy after sex too. Obviously.
This random guy on the internet whose comment I read years ago, he saw a piece of evidence that made a good story for his views, and he didn’t actually check whether it was evidence against the opponent’s views. I think he just assumed that the two models had to be opposed in every single way and any evidence for his views was evidence against the opposite. He was basically the same as the banana guy.
You know the banana guy? "Bananas are proof of Deus because they’re perfect for eating ". Guy didn’t do his research and didn’t realise humans made bananas the way they are. He found a good story and didn’t check if it was also a good story for the other guys. Same as the sleepy sex guy.
You gotta be able to see the other side’s viewpoint enough to check whether your evidence can be explained by their views, or if you’re just embarassing yourself. That’s the bare minimum of understanding other people’s views. Without it, you end up like the banana guy.
I bet if you replied to that guy and laid it all out, he’d accuse you of being a Jebus loving fundie.
Yeah, I bet. The internet hates nuance, it hates when someone corrects their “own side” or seeks a truth independent of sides. I got banned 6 months ago from Hexbear for saying there’s such a thing as gender neutral pronouns. There was a lot of discussion about the topic, and it emerged that there were two different interpretations of what I said, and they both hated me. Half thought I was advocating they/theming everyone, and hated me for refusing to gender binary people. Half thought I was advocating they/theming nobody, and hated me for insisting on gendering nonbinary people. Neither of those two positions is my position, and of course they’re mutually incompatible with each other.
But these two sides both hated me, and teamed up with each other without ever realising they had completely different ideas. Because, as you say, the fact I had a small disagreement or clarification of their views meant I had to be the enemy. Whereas those two sides had completely different views, but they didn’t voice their disagreements to each other, so they were able to assume they were on the same side. Have a nuanced position like mine, in questions of religion or gender or anything else, and both sides will team up to kick your ass.